Among particular social and economic cadres of the ancient world, there was certainly nothing deemed wrong with homosexual liaisons under accepted protocols. On the other hand, for the vast majority of rural folk in the Mediterranean world, heterosexuality and marriage were, of course, the norms. The pre-Christian poor and agrarian classes considered homosexual acts deviant, not on religious grounds of sinfulness, but rather as proof of corruption and decadence that were the wages of too much money and too much time in town.

This is merely the one quote I could find quickly online. I have read several books by him and he makes it quite clear that homosexuality was neither "rampant" nor celebrated. It was accepted in very narrow terms and considered a pathology of the very wealthy (hence the surviving art evidence you point to and the persistence of the myth). Your argument comes from the likes of Cahill who is a liberal hack next to Hanson.

I was in from 85-92, See my profile.

31 posted on 03/19/2008 2:17:46 AM PDT by NucSubs
(Democrat:: one who panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses.)

> “...It was accepted in very narrow terms and considered a pathology of the very wealthy...” <

Good catch. That statement sounds like it would be closer to the “norm” for the majority who are usually voiceless. Why? Unfortunately rural folk in the ancient world didn’t write the histories - they couldn’t write much less read. To receive an education one had to have wealth - so guess who wrote the histories?

Interest in how ancient peoples lived, other than the very wealthy, has been of increasing interest during the last half of the 20th century, something I believe we Americans fostered. Personally I’m glad to see it.

Western Civilization’s classical perception of the ancient world has tended to be fixed by the interests of 18th-19th century Europeans, a group whose backgrounds were anything but middleclass. The homosexual agenda goes way back.